I write about the Internet technologies and upstarts that are disrupting advertising and media faster than ever. I'm living this disruption, so I might as well write about it, too. I spent nine years as chief of BusinessWeek's Silicon Valley bureau writing about the leading edge of technology and business, and I continue to do so for a variety of publications. Follow my posts here by clicking the "+ Follow" link under my name. You can also find me at my personal Web site RobHof.com, follow me on Twitter (robhof), Circle me on Google+, subscribe to me on Facebook, and email me (robert.hof@gmail.com).

Why Would Apple Want To Invest In Twitter--Or Anything Social?

Apparently, Apple has talked with Twitter about investing several hundred million dollars into the company. Depending on whether you accept the New York Times’ version or the later Wall Street Journal’s version, Apple discussed the investment in recent months or last year, though there are no talks currently. (A little bird must have told them.)

Either way, I don’t quite get it. Yes, I see that Apple CEO Tim Cook said recently, “Does Apple need to be social? Yes.” But I don’t understand why. Why does a company that seems to do no wrong–or, when it does, nobody cares–need to be social in any way, shape, or form?

Apple makes great products, of course, but it’s also known for its masterful marketing. And the essence of that marketing is not about trying to spur people to talk about their products, at least not directly. No, it’s about trying to maintain absolute secrecy to promote a mystique about the next model of the iPhone, the iPad, the Mac.

Then people feel empowered, if sometimes to Apple’s annoyance, to talk their fool heads off. That builds so much buzz that, as we know so well by now, almost any new product has people camping overnight in front of Apple stores to be among the first to buy it. Anything that companies do on Facebook or Twitter to promote buzz looks positively lame next to this.

Oh, I know about the failure of its one attempt at a social product, Ping, the social network around music. And that failure made precisely zero difference in how well Apple’s business is doing. Zero.

As far as I can tell, Apple–or, what matters more, its customer base–is already plenty social by any definition that’s useful to Apple. It’s not just “let’s poke” and “let’s tweet.” Apple customers love their company, and they find every last opportunity they can to tell the world about their undying love. They also pile on and beat to a virtual pulp anyone who dares to suggest that any of Apple’s products are not utterly perfect. If companies on Facebook have fans, Apple has the originals: fanatics.

So Apple doesn’t need to invest in social companies such as Twitter; it can give lessons to Twitter and every other company on the planet on how to build a company whose users take it upon themselves to market their products.

Is social media going to sell more Apple hardware? Seems doubtful. More apps? Can’t really see how. Games, movies, and music? Well, maybe there’s something to those, given how they can all be enjoyed with friends and thus, when people are provided an adjacent service to share them, they might generate incremental sales–clearly, that must have been a goal of Ping. But I still don’t quite get how Twitter in particular would enable this, and even less why Apple would need to invest in Twitter to make it happen. (Update: The Journal is reporting that the investment talks were not serious and came up only as a result of discussions on integrating Twitter into Apple’s mobile operating system. That makes more sense.)

Perhaps it’s just too late at night for me to figure this out, or perhaps (as some Apple fans have told me recently) I’m just an idiot. But after combing through these stories for clues as to why Apple needs to invest in Twitter or any other social company, I’m stumped. (And so are someotherpeople now. Please offer up suggestions in the comments, even if you have to insult me first. Seriously, I’m curious, since I must be missing something, given this cryptic sentence in the Journal: “Recently, Apple has met with a number of social media start-ups to discuss product ideas, according to people familiar with the matter.”)

Then again, Apple didn’t invest in Twitter, and given that there are no current negotiations, it looks like it probably won’t. It’s hard to believe Twitter would reject some kind of investment by the world’s most successful tech company, even if it doesn’t need the money. And Apple can certainly afford to take a flyer on anything. So it seems more likely Tim Cook finally couldn’t figure out a really good reason either.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

I agree that Apple don’t need Twitter to market their hardware. So why should Apple want Twitter? Seems to me that a social media which contained adverts & direct links to what photos, apps, music & games your network are tweeting buying and viewing and would all be sold & consumed on a Apple device sounds like a powerful shop window. Result: grows & develop Apple software sales and increases/defends their hardware business. Then again if I knew anything I would be a tech billionaire…

I can think of a good reason. Imagine texting being replaced by tweets, not everyone has an iPhone but almost everyone has a Twitter account. In the spirit of Steve Jobs it would be a great way to stick it to the man.